We performed a comparison between Selenium HQ and SmartBear LoadNinja based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."There is a supportive community around it."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"The most valuable features of Selenium HQ are it is open source and has multiple languages and browser support. It's very useful."
"I like its simplicity."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"Selenium HQ has a lot of capabilities and is compatible with many languages."
"Its biggest advantage is that it is very customizable."
"SmartBear LoadNinja is easy to use and implement."
"We are happy with the technical support."
"It's a very simple tool for performance testing."
"It is not a licensed tool. The problem with that is that it won't be able to support Windows desktop applications. There is no support for Windows desktop applications. They can do something about it. Its user interface can also be improved, which is not great compared to the other latest tools. Anybody who has been working on functional testing or manual testing cannot directly work on Selenium HQ without learning programming skills, which is a disadvantage."
"I have found that at times the tool does not catch the class features of website content correctly. The product's AWS configuration is also hard."
"If the test scenarios are not subdivided correctly, it is very likely that maintenance will become very expensive and re-use is unlikely."
"I would like to see some reporting or test management tools."
"The solution does not offer up enough information in regards to personality testing."
"It would be very great if Selenium would provide some framework examples so newcomers could get started more quickly."
"Improvement in Selenium's ability to identify and wait for the page/element to load would be a big plus. This would ensure that our failed test cases will drop by 60%."
"Selenium has been giving us failures sometimes. It is not working one hundred percent of the time when we are creating elements. They need to improve the stability of the solution."
"On a smaller scale, there will be no budget issues, but as we expand to a larger user base, I believe we will face some pricing challenges."
"It needs time to mature."
"As we ran the test, we couldn't see the real-time results of how the solution behaved for 200 to 400 virtual users."
Selenium HQ is ranked 4th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews while SmartBear LoadNinja is ranked 14th in Performance Testing Tools with 3 reviews. Selenium HQ is rated 8.0, while SmartBear LoadNinja is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SmartBear LoadNinja writes "Easy to use with good documentation and helpful support". Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and OpenText Silk Test, whereas SmartBear LoadNinja is most compared with Apache JMeter, ReadyAPI Performance, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and BlazeMeter.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.